Obama the Messiah of Generation Narcissism

[Tigermike 3,054]

In recent years, the Republican party has become extreme and irrational, however.

So you are a dem because they are not extreme or irrational?

There are extreme and irrational folks of all stripes. With the Republicans, however, the problem extends more deeply and broadly into the ones that are actually elected. Watching the Republicans try to out-extreme each other during their debates was pretty disturbing.

Obviously you in your zeal you have not taken a good look at many of the dims "that are actually elected".

Obama would be a good place to start. Would you care to comment on the fact that his plans and platform line up almost word for word and point by point with the socialist agenda? Or the fact that he has had contact with and is supported by former domestic terrorists?

[TexasTiger 13,026]

In recent years, the Republican party has become extreme and irrational, however.

So you are a dem because they are not extreme or irrational?

There are extreme and irrational folks of all stripes. With the Republicans, however, the problem extends more deeply and broadly into the ones that are actually elected. Watching the Republicans try to out-extreme each other during their debates was pretty disturbing.

Obviously you in your zeal you have not taken a good look at many of the dims "that are actually elected".

Obama would be a good place to start. Would you care to comment on the fact that his plans and platform line up almost word for word and point by point with the socialist agenda? Or the fact that he has had contact with and is supported by former domestic terrorists?

Care to add more substance to your innuendo and rhetoric so that I'm sure I'm responding to what you're thinking about?

[Tigermike 3,054]

In recent years, the Republican party has become extreme and irrational, however.

So you are a dem because they are not extreme or irrational?

There are extreme and irrational folks of all stripes. With the Republicans, however, the problem extends more deeply and broadly into the ones that are actually elected. Watching the Republicans try to out-extreme each other during their debates was pretty disturbing.

Obviously you in your zeal you have not taken a good look at many of the dims "that are actually elected".

Obama would be a good place to start. Would you care to comment on the fact that his plans and platform line up almost word for word and point by point with the socialist agenda? Or the fact that he has had contact with and is supported by former domestic terrorists?

Care to add more substance to your innuendo and rhetoric so that I'm sure I'm responding to what you're thinking about?

If John McCain had met with Timothy McVeigh in 1995 to secure his blessing for re-election to the Senate, or if he had met with Eric Rudolph the following year, would the dims and the NY Times be interested?

Would the media be as understanding? Would it fall to Politico to report it, or would the New York Times have it in a two-column, front-page spread next to a picture of a smiling Barack Obama? I think we know the answer to that don't we. Innuendo and rhetoric from the left is all OK and always above board.

Check this out.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8630.html

All that doesn't mean that Obama professes the same support for political violence as the Weather couple, but it does show a lack of backbone in rejecting those that do. If Obama can't stand up to two discredited American terrorists in Chicago ... well, you get the drift. What does it say about Obama's politics that Ayers and Dohrn approved of him, and what does it say about Obama that he felt he needed their blessing?

[Tigermike 3,054]

Since many don't care to follow links I will post the article here.

Why hasn't the NYTimes reported this? Or even mentioned it. After all they seem to like stories that are strong on innuendo and rhetoric and lack substance.

Obama once visited '60s radicals

By: Ben Smith

Feb 22, 2008 01:09 AM EST

In 1995, State Senator Alice Palmer introduced her chosen successor, Barack Obama, to a few of the district’s influential liberals at the home of two well known figures on the local left: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.

While Ayers and Dohrn may be thought of in Hyde Park as local activists, they’re better known nationally as two of the most notorious — and unrepentant — figures from the violent fringe of the 1960s anti-war movement.

Now, as Obama runs for president, what two guests recall as an unremarkable gathering on the road to a minor elected office stands as a symbol of how swiftly he has risen from a man in the Hyde Park left to one closing in fast on the Democratic nomination for president.

“I can remember being one of a small group of people who came to Bill Ayers’ house to learn that Alice Palmer was stepping down from the senate and running for Congress,” said Dr. Quentin Young, a prominent Chicago physician and advocate for single-payer health care, of the informal gathering at the home of Ayers and his wife, Dohrn. “[Palmer] identified [Obama] as her successor.”

Obama and Palmer “were both there,” he said.

Obama’s connections to Ayers and Dorhn have been noted in some fleeting news coverage in the past. But the visit by Obama to their home — part of a campaign courtship — reflects more extensive interaction than has been previously reported.

Neither Ayers nor the Obama campaign would describe the relationship between the two men. Dr. Young described Obama and Ayers as “friends,” but there’s no evidence their relationship is more than the casual friendship of two men who occupy overlapping Chicago political circles and who served together on the board of a Chicago foundation.

But Obama’s relationship with Ayers is an especially vivid milepost on his rise, in record time, from a local official who unabashedly reflected a very liberal district to the leader of national movement based largely on the claim that he can transcend ideological divides.

In one sense, Obama’s journey toward the cultural and political center is not unusual among national politicians. But its velocity is.

Politicians of an earlier generation had their own relationships with figures now far to their left. Hillary Rodham Clinton, for instance, interned at a radical San Francisco law firm while in law school.

On the other side of the political spectrum, many in the generation before hers shifted dramatically on civil rights. John McCain voted against creating a holiday to honor Martin Luther King Jr. and later called that a mistake.

The relationship with Ayers gives context to his recent past in Hyde Park politics. It’s milieu in which a former violent radical was a stalwart of the local scene, not especially controversial.

It’s also a scene whose liberal ideological features — while taken for granted by the Chicago press corps that knows Obama best — provides a jarring contrast with Obama’s current, anti-ideological stance. This contrast between past and present — not least the Ayers connection — is virtually certain to be a subject Republican operatives will warm to if Obama is the Democratic nominee.

The tension between the present and recent Chicago past is also evident in some of his positions on major national issues. Many national politicians, including Clinton, have moved toward the center over time. But Obama’s transitions are still quite fresh.

A questionnaire from his 1996 campaign indicated more blanket opposition to the death penalty, and support of abortion rights, than he currently espouses. He spoke in support of single-payer health care as recently as 2003.

Like many of the most extreme figures from the 1960s Ayers and Dohrn are ambiguous figures in American life.

They disappeared in 1970, after a bomb — designed to kill army officers in New Jersey — accidentally destroyed a Greenwich Village townhouse, and turned themselves into authorities in 1980. They were never prosecuted for their involvement with the 25 bombings the Weather Underground claimed; charges were dropped because of improper FBI surveillance.

Both have written and spoken at length about their pasts, and today he is an advocate for progressive education and a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago; she’s an associate professor of law at Northwestern University.

But — unlike some other fringe figures of the era — they’re also flatly unrepentant about the bombings they committed in the name of ending the war, defending them on the grounds that they killed no one, except, accidentally, their own members.

Dohrn, however, was jailed for less than a year for refusing to testify before a grand jury investigating other Weather Underground members’ robbery of a Brinks truck, in which a guard and two New York State Troopers were killed.

“I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough,” Ayers told the New York Times in 2001.

And their rehabilitation in establishment circles, even in Hyde Park, has its limits.

Though he is a respected figure in liberal educational circles, Ayers wrote recently about how in 2006 he was informed he was persona non grata at a progressive educators’ conference in the summer of 2006.

“We cannot risk a simplistic and dubious association between progressive education and the violent aspects of your past,” he quoted the conference organizers, whom he described as friends, as writing to him.

But the couple has been embraced, by and large, in the liberal circles dominating Hyde Park politics.

“Bill Ayers is one of my heroes in life,” said Sam Ackerman, a longtime local activist. “I knew Tony Rezko, and he ain’t no Rezko.”

But others in Hyde Park, whose intellectual and political life revolves around the University of Chicago, view the couple with ambivalence.

“I feel very uncomfortable with their past, but neither of them is thought of as horrible types now — so far as most of us know, they are legitimate members of the community,” said Cass Sunstein, a University of Chicago law professor who has known Obama since the early 1990s and supports his campaign.

“Not only is Obama the opposite pole from radicals like Ayers and Dohrn at least as one point were, he’s not a conventional left liberal by any means,” he said.

Others are less inclined to even consider forgiveness.

“Ayers was a terrorist. Bernardine Dohrn was a terrorist. Ayers has never offered one word of apology — he glories in it, thinks it’s terrific. And that to me is not what I would call acceptable or mainstream behavior,” said Dan Polsby, a former law professor at Northwestern who is now dean of George Mason University Law School. “If Obama takes a different view on that — well, OK, that’s data about Obama.”

On Thursday, Ayers spoke at the State University of New York at New Paltz, where he refused to answer questions from Politico about his relationship with Obama.

Dohrn did not respond to a message left at her office.

Obama’s campaign dismisses the notion that his relationship with Ayers should be seen through the lens of the latter’s violent past, or his present lack of regret for the bombings.

“Sen. Obama strongly condemns the violent actions of the Weathermen group, as he does all acts of violence,” said Obama’s press secretary, Bill Burton. “But he was an 8-year-old child when Ayers and the Weathermen were active, and any attempt to connect Obama with events of almost 40 years ago is ridiculous.”

He described Ayers as “a professor of education at the University of Illinois-Chicago and a former aide to Mayor Richard J. Daley,” referring to printed reports that he had “advised” Daley on school reform.

As Bloomberg News reported recently, Obama and Ayers have crossed paths repeatedly in the last decade. In 1997, Obama cited Ayers’ critique of the juvenile justice system in a Chicago Tribune article on what prominent Chicagoans were reading. He and Ayers served together on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago for three years starting in 1999. In 2001, Ayers also gave $200 to Obama’s state Senate reelection campaign.

Many details of the 1995 meeting are shrouded by time and by Obama’s and Ayers’ refusals to discuss it.

The exact date is not known, but it was in the second half of 1995, before Palmer’s decision — late in her losing congressional primary against Jesse Jackson Jr. — to jump back into the special election for her state Senate seat. (Her decision produced a rift between her and Obama, who was able to get her thrown off the ballot on technical grounds.)

“That’s too long ago — that’s ancient history,” Palmer said, when asked of the meeting.

Dr. Young and another guest, Maria Warren, described it similarly: as an introduction to Hyde Park liberals of the handpicked successor to Palmer, a well-regarded figure on the left.

“When I first met Barack Obama, he was giving a standard, innocuous little talk in the living room of those two legends-in-their-own-minds, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn,” Warren wrote on her blog in 2005. “They were launching him — introducing him to the Hyde Park community as the best thing since sliced bread.”

Contacted by e-mail, Warren declined to describe the meeting further and later blogged of her concern that Republicans would use accounts of the event for “left-baiting.”

Young described the gathering as a matter of “due diligence” for Palmer to introduce her chosen successor to constituents. “Many of us knew him already,” he said.

They, like others in his old Chicago world, now consider him a bit too “conservative” for their liking, as Warren wrote recently.

Ackerman, the Hyde Park activist, complained of his votes for continued funding for the Iraq war.

“A lot of people were very angry when he voted to fund the war,” he said. “But any candidate running for president is going to strive for broader appeal and move more to the center — I don’t believe that Barack has departed from his basic principles.”

Dr. Young said, however, that he isn’t supporting either of the leading presidential candidates because he is a single-issue voter, and the issue is single-payer health care.

He said he was disappointed that Obama is “equivocating” on his support for single-payer health care, after saying in the past that he supported it. But he said Obama’s style — “cautious, deliberate, defensive” — was also familiar from the senator’s Hyde Park days.

“In fairness, there’s no double dealing,” he said. “It’s part of his stated strategy: He wants to get maximum unity.”

Stringer Andrew Lipkowitz contributed to this story.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8630.html

Again I will say that doesn't mean that Obama professes the same support for political violence as the Weather couple, but it does show some who are supporting him.

[TexasTiger 13,026]

Who is going to pay for his fantastical schemes? He stated on more than one occasion that "anyone making over $50k a year" should shoulder more of the burden.

Unless you cite this, I have to conclude you are simply making this up.

Can you give me any SPECIFIC examples of what he plans to accomplish?

You can read for yourself and draw your own conclusions. I don't think I've ever tried to tell you whom you should vote for. That said, most "plans" and "proposals" any candidate has will be subject to the meat grinder of the legislative process and any one of them would likely look quite different if it gets passed at all. I suffer no illusions in this regard.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

I've yet to see anyone defend him with anything other than the generalized "he offers hope." Hope for what? And how? Since you are (quite obviously) unable to defend him and have followed the typical Obama-supporter script of diversion followed by the "you don't want to know anyway" dodge, I have to wonder how in the screaming blue hell you justify supporting this wisp of gas to yourself.

You haven't heard me extol the virtues of "hope" very much, if at all. You supported a guy, in fact had a serious man-crush on him, who failed to make an even remotely compelling case for his candidacy. Few concrete proposals or plans. Still, that's your right. You like the guy. He cleaned up Times Square. Took on NYC jaywalking. And made some horrible judgements regarding many things, including the thug Kerik. But you love him. Fine.

I've watched several of Obama's televised appearances to see whether I could support him. The answer is NO. And not just no, but HELL F**KING NO. Anyone who does is, in my opinion, incapable of making a distinction between rhetoric and substance.

....Obama and his cult can all leap off a cliff so far as I am concerned. Obama's empty rhetoric would be funny were it not so dangerous. He is a socialist. In fact, his ideas are almost communist "From all according to ability to all according to need" fits very well with his agenda. And we all know how well communism works out.

Hell with Obama. HELL with him.

So he's out. Next...

In exceptionally strong terms, you tell me your mind is made up, tell me I'm stupid, and then challenge me to change your mind. I'm not stupid enough to believe I can, and could not really care less whom you vote for or if you vote at all. You rant and rant and then dare me to reason with you. I'd frankly have a better chance of teaching my cat to talk.

[TexasTiger 13,026]

In recent years, the Republican party has become extreme and irrational, however.

So you are a dem because they are not extreme or irrational?

There are extreme and irrational folks of all stripes. With the Republicans, however, the problem extends more deeply and broadly into the ones that are actually elected. Watching the Republicans try to out-extreme each other during their debates was pretty disturbing.

Obviously you in your zeal you have not taken a good look at many of the dims "that are actually elected".

Obama would be a good place to start. Would you care to comment on the fact that his plans and platform line up almost word for word and point by point with the socialist agenda? Or the fact that he has had contact with and is supported by former domestic terrorists?

Care to add more substance to your innuendo and rhetoric so that I'm sure I'm responding to what you're thinking about?

If John McCain had met with Timothy McVeigh in 1995 to secure his blessing for re-election to the Senate, or if he had met with Eric Rudolph the following year, would the dims and the NY Times be interested?

Would the media be as understanding? Would it fall to Politico to report it, or would the New York Times have it in a two-column, front-page spread next to a picture of a smiling Barack Obama? I think we know the answer to that don't we. Innuendo and rhetoric from the left is all OK and always above board.

Check this out.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8630.html

All that doesn't mean that Obama professes the same support for political violence as the Weather couple, but it does show a lack of backbone in rejecting those that do. If Obama can't stand up to two discredited American terrorists in Chicago ... well, you get the drift. What does it say about Obama's politics that Ayers and Dohrn approved of him, and what does it say about Obama that he felt he needed their blessing?

Frankly, I think that's pretty weak. I'm about Obama's age and I'd never heard of those two folks. Plus, he didn't seek them out-- they were at an event that another politician introduced Obama at. I don't know all the details, but apparently, Ayres was never even tried. He sounds a little nutty to me, but he's a citizen, apparently with no record of convictions, who holds a professorship at a prestigious University in Obama's district. I'm not sure the analogy to Tim McVeigh works too well-- McVeigh killed alot of people. Also, I don't see much evidence of any meaningful relationship to Obama. Do you?

[GalensGhost 0]

I think it is worth noting that Tex has chosen to ignore all requests for substance while he continues to engage in purely diversionary tactics. Like ALL Obama drones he is clearly befuddled by the most basic of questions:

1. What is is that Obama SPECIFICALLY plans to do and would he, as president, even have the authority or ability to accomplish it?

2. Assuming he can do any of the things he proposes, who will pay for them?

Don't expect Tex or any other barack wonk to reply. They can't. Because even the candidate doesnt know.

[TexasTiger 13,026]

I think it is worth noting that Tex has chosen to ignore all requests for substance while he continues to engage in purely diversionary tactics. Like ALL Obama drones he is clearly befuddled by the most basic of questions:

1. What is is that Obama SPECIFICALLY plans to do and would he, as president, even have the authority or ability to accomplish it?

2. Assuming he can do any of the things he proposes, who will pay for them?

Don't expect Tex or any other barack wonk to reply. They can't. Because even the candidate doesnt know.

I think it is worth noting how Galen acts when someone respects his right to disagree, but doesn't care to get into a worthless pissing contest with him. I don't really come to this forum thinking I'm going to change minds anymore, especially in regard to candidate choices. I may call BS when I think it is warranted and I gave Galen a link to Obama's positions if he's truly interested. He isn't. And that's fine.

[Tigermike 3,054]

Straight from the Socialists website.

Below are some documents that you can download for DSA organizing in your area.

Ideology and Oil Power the War. A Message to the Marchers on October 27, 2007

Toward an Economic Justice Agenda - July 2007

Justice for Undocumented Workers

Membership Flyer (Spanish)

New Orleans Leaflet - Sept. 29, 2005

Anti-war Leaflet - January 27, 2007

The Antiwar Movement and Iraq

Building the Next Left

Democratic Socialist Theory and Practice

Defending Social Security

Health Care for All

The Politics of Race

Bush's Failed Economic Program

The Wal-Mart Revolution (127 k)

Fight Bush’s War: At Home and Abroad (125 k)

DSA Recruitment Flyers (2 flyers) (562 k)

What is Democratic Socialism (188 k)

Casino Capitalism (108 k)

http://www.dsausa.org/resources.html

Even you would have to admit that Obama’s “points” line up pretty well as those from the Democrat Socialist of America (DSA). Don’t they? Now I am not saying that Obama is in bed with the socialist but then the DSA, Chicago did campaign for him for his Senate run. They did go door to door for him at that time, registering voters. DSA, Chicago did endorsement Obama in that Senate race.

If I can come up with that information, why can’t the NY Times? Why can’t any other news organization? Could it be because they have an agenda?

In March 1996 Chicago DSA endorsed four candidates for the Illinois elections (All democrats). They included;

Danny Davis

William "Willie" Delgado

Patricia Martin

Barack Obama,

http://www.chicagodsa.org/ngarchive/ng45.html

Would any of the resident dems care to comment?

[Tigermike 3,054]

Frankly, I think that's pretty weak. I'm about Obama's age and I'd never heard of those two folks. Plus, he didn't seek them out-- they were at an event that another politician introduced Obama at. I don't know all the details, but apparently, Ayres was never even tried. He sounds a little nutty to me, but he's a citizen, apparently with no record of convictions, who holds a professorship at a prestigious University in Obama's district. I'm not sure the analogy to Tim McVeigh works too well-- McVeigh killed alot of people. Also, I don't see much evidence of any meaningful relationship to Obama. Do you?

Most of the bomb-throwers repented of their actions, but not all -- and two, William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, who remain proud of their terrorism may impact the presidential election.

''I don't regret setting bombs,'' Bill Ayers said. ''I feel we didn't do enough.''

As for their scholarly respect at a prestigious University in Obama's district, check it out.

http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/971106/justice.shtml

Anyway just in case you think it is all a vast right wing conspiracy.

Clinton Camp Pushes O-Bomber Links: Ignores Her Own Radical Ties

Clinton, Obama Spar on Ties to Radicals

(Clinton wants it out there and Obama deflects.)

The Hillary Clinton campaign pushed to reporters today stories about Barack Obama and his ties to former members of a radical domestic terrorist group -- but did not note that as president, Clinton's husband pardoned more than a dozen convicted violent radicals, including a member of the same group mentioned in the Obama stories.

"Wonder what the Republicans will do with this issue," (well not cover it up like the dims, I would think) mused Clinton spokesman Phil Singer in one e-mail to the media, containing a New York Sun article reporting a $200 contribution from William Ayers, a founding member of the Weather Underground, to Obama in 2001. (Obama's ties to the radical group first surfaced last week in a Bloomberg News article.)

In a separate e-mail, Singer forwarded an article from Politico.com reporting on a 1995 event at a private home that brought Obama together with Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, another former member of the radical group.

Opting to leave any attacks on the issue to the GOP may be wise, as attacks from Clinton could backfire. In his final day in office, President Clinton pardoned another one-time member of the Weather Underground, Susan L. Rosenberg, after she had served 16 years in prison on federal charges.

Rosenberg had been arrested in 1984 while unloading 740 pounds of dynamite, a submachine gun and other weapons from the back of a car.

Rosenberg admitted the materials were to supply others for politically-motivated attacks. Authorities had been searching for Rosenberg since 1981, for what they believed was her role in the robbery of a Brinks truck in Rockland County, N.Y. The attack, for which Rosenberg was thought to have aided with surveillance and getaway driving, left two police officers and a guard dead.

Rosenberg has denied playing a role in the Brinks heist. In arguing for a pardon in 2001, she noted that she had been a model prisoner.

And in 1999, President Clinton also pardoned 16 violent Puerto Rican nationalists responsible for more than 100 bombings of U.S. political and military installations, after they promised to renounce violence. The attacks reportedly killed six people and wounded dozens more. In justifying the pardons, President Clinton noted none of the men had been convicted of crimes that resulted in death or injuries.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4330128&page=1

[TexasTiger 13,026]

Straight from the Socialists website.

Below are some documents that you can download for DSA organizing in your area.

Ideology and Oil Power the War. A Message to the Marchers on October 27, 2007

Toward an Economic Justice Agenda - July 2007

Justice for Undocumented Workers

Membership Flyer (Spanish)

New Orleans Leaflet - Sept. 29, 2005

Anti-war Leaflet - January 27, 2007

The Antiwar Movement and Iraq

Building the Next Left

Democratic Socialist Theory and Practice

Defending Social Security

Health Care for All

The Politics of Race

Bush's Failed Economic Program

The Wal-Mart Revolution (127 k)

Fight Bush’s War: At Home and Abroad (125 k)

DSA Recruitment Flyers (2 flyers) (562 k)

What is Democratic Socialism (188 k)

Casino Capitalism (108 k)

http://www.dsausa.org/resources.html

Even you would have to admit that Obama’s “points” line up pretty well as those from the Democrat Socialist of America (DSA). Don’t they? Now I am not saying that Obama is in bed with the socialist but then the DSA, Chicago did campaign for him for his Senate run. They did go door to door for him at that time, registering voters. DSA, Chicago did endorsement Obama in that Senate race.

If I can come up with that information, why can’t the NY Times? Why can’t any other news organization? Could it be because they have an agenda?

In March 1996 Chicago DSA endorsed four candidates for the Illinois elections (All democrats). They included;

Danny Davis

William "Willie" Delgado

Patricia Martin

Barack Obama,

http://www.chicagodsa.org/ngarchive/ng45.html

Would any of the resident dems care to comment?

A lot of PDFs there, TM. I looked at a couple, but frankly don't have any real reason to read up on their literature. If you want to take the time to compare particular points to Obama's position papers, go ahead. Any kind of detailed analysis would take considerable time. That said, if your point is that any pro-labor organization will tend to support the Dem nominee compared to the Republican nominee, I would say that it typically true. I suspect the KKK will prefer the Republican nominee to the Dem nominee, but I don't think that is a negative reflection on McCain or the Republicans. Curious though, have they "endorsed" Obama since that 1996 campaign? He's run several times since then.

[TexasTiger 13,026]

It's a meaningless story in my opinion, and I know HRC is pushing it now, along with some on the right. It will have to play out.

Frankly, I think that's pretty weak. I'm about Obama's age and I'd never heard of those two folks. Plus, he didn't seek them out-- they were at an event that another politician introduced Obama at. I don't know all the details, but apparently, Ayres was never even tried. He sounds a little nutty to me, but he's a citizen, apparently with no record of convictions, who holds a professorship at a prestigious University in Obama's district. I'm not sure the analogy to Tim McVeigh works too well-- McVeigh killed alot of people. Also, I don't see much evidence of any meaningful relationship to Obama. Do you?

Most of the bomb-throwers repented of their actions, but not all -- and two, William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, who remain proud of their terrorism may impact the presidential election.

''I don't regret setting bombs,'' Bill Ayers said. ''I feel we didn't do enough.''

As for their scholarly respect at a prestigious University in Obama's district, check it out.

http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/971106/justice.shtml

Anyway just in case you think it is all a vast right wing conspiracy.

Clinton Camp Pushes O-Bomber Links: Ignores Her Own Radical Ties

Clinton, Obama Spar on Ties to Radicals

(Clinton wants it out there and Obama deflects.)

The Hillary Clinton campaign pushed to reporters today stories about Barack Obama and his ties to former members of a radical domestic terrorist group -- but did not note that as president, Clinton's husband pardoned more than a dozen convicted violent radicals, including a member of the same group mentioned in the Obama stories.

"Wonder what the Republicans will do with this issue," (well not cover it up like the dims, I would think) mused Clinton spokesman Phil Singer in one e-mail to the media, containing a New York Sun article reporting a $200 contribution from William Ayers, a founding member of the Weather Underground, to Obama in 2001. (Obama's ties to the radical group first surfaced last week in a Bloomberg News article.)

In a separate e-mail, Singer forwarded an article from Politico.com reporting on a 1995 event at a private home that brought Obama together with Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, another former member of the radical group.

Opting to leave any attacks on the issue to the GOP may be wise, as attacks from Clinton could backfire. In his final day in office, President Clinton pardoned another one-time member of the Weather Underground, Susan L. Rosenberg, after she had served 16 years in prison on federal charges.

Rosenberg had been arrested in 1984 while unloading 740 pounds of dynamite, a submachine gun and other weapons from the back of a car.

Rosenberg admitted the materials were to supply others for politically-motivated attacks. Authorities had been searching for Rosenberg since 1981, for what they believed was her role in the robbery of a Brinks truck in Rockland County, N.Y. The attack, for which Rosenberg was thought to have aided with surveillance and getaway driving, left two police officers and a guard dead.

Rosenberg has denied playing a role in the Brinks heist. In arguing for a pardon in 2001, she noted that she had been a model prisoner.

And in 1999, President Clinton also pardoned 16 violent Puerto Rican nationalists responsible for more than 100 bombings of U.S. political and military installations, after they promised to renounce violence. The attacks reportedly killed six people and wounded dozens more. In justifying the pardons, President Clinton noted none of the men had been convicted of crimes that resulted in death or injuries.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4330128&page=1

[Tigermike 3,054]

It's a meaningless story in my opinion, and I know HRC is pushing it now, along with some on the right. It will have to play out.

So it does not matter who supports him or for how long? This is why I made the analogy with McVeigh & Rudolph. Both were bombers the same as the two mentioned in the article. The difference is the way those on the left want to look at it.

Somewhat like Obama's church. If a Republican was a member of a church with a pastor who was a racist and anti Israeli, it would be blown up all over the NYT, LA TIMES and most all papers and news organizations world wide.

OK lets get past the Weather underground folks. H

How about the socialists? Any comment on that since they have worked for his election and endorsed him for election. He has also been friends with them for years. His talking points line up well with DSA & DSA Chicago. Any thoughts?

[TexasTiger 13,026]

It's a meaningless story in my opinion, and I know HRC is pushing it now, along with some on the right. It will have to play out.

So it does not matter who supports him or for how long? This is why I made the analogy with McVeigh & Rudolph. Both were bombers the same as the two mentioned in the article. The difference is the way those on the left want to look at it.

Somewhat like Obama's church. If a Republican was a member of a church with a pastor who was a racist and anti Israeli, it would be blown up all over the NYT, LA TIMES and most all papers and news organizations world wide.

OK lets get past the Weather underground folks. H

How about the socialists? Any comment on that since they have worked for his election and endorsed him for election. He has also been friends with them for years. His talking points line up well with DSA & DSA Chicago. Any thoughts?

I'm more concerned with what a candidate supports than who supports a candidate. But it appears that that DSA hasn't supported him in the last 12 years based on the info you linked to.

I don't know much about the couple in the article other than there is no allegation that they ever harmed anyone that I know of. If you want to compare them to McVeigh, go ahead. I think it is one hell of a reach. Why are they running free in George Bush's America? Doesn't this administration bring terrorists to justice?

All of this stuff is tenuous and silly, IMHO. Some folks, including Dubya supporters in 2000, say McCain left POWs behind in Viet Nam. I think that's crap. Obama and McCain have significant policy differences. Obama is the more liberal of the two. I don't know that you need all these tenuous side issues to make up your mind, do you? If you didn't know of this stuff, would your position really be any different? You reject Obama for policy reasons, right?

[WinCrimson 61]

Galen... It's late, I'm hungry, and I'm buzzing so take it FWIW.

Why will I vote for Obama? I agree with him on more issues than I do McCain. Am I completely sold on him? No, and had some reservations with every candidate in the race. I have a major beef with him on tort reform. While I don't think he's exactly sold on it and wouldn't have an opportunity to do any damage in the sure-to-be Democratically dominated 111th Congress, I do take serious issue with his position, as lukewarm as it may be. I'm also not as motivated on the government providing universal healthcare as he is, but we both agree that our current system is in a helluva fix in regards to the less fortunate.

His positives in my eyes? I appreciate the fact that he was against the Iraq quagmire when it was the unpopular stance to take. People complain about politicians that govern by polls, and through this position, it's obvious that he isn't one of those politicians. I also like that he hasn't taken one red cent from lobbyists -- props goes out to John Edwards for that, too. I think government is heading down a slippery slope -- one in which our elected officials are merely middle men for powerful lobbyists and donors. I want my Congressperson, Senator, and President to have what they believe to be the the public's best interests at heart and not be mouthpieces for notoriously corrupt special interests. Another positive is the fact that he, as a Harvard Law graduate, accepted a $13,000 job on the inner city streets of Chicago instead of taking his rightful place among the Wall Street elite. I'll be totally honest and say that I could probably never do that, but I think it's a very admirable action that tells me a lot about his character.

Just a word of advice -- I would leave the "how will we pay for this?!??!?!" Republican talking point alone, considering the empire of a government Bush has built over the past seven years. A quick start to saving, however, would be getting the hell out of the desert and letting them rebuild their own damn nation.

I'm just wondering how he is a "fool?" Simply because I disagree with Giuliani, McCain, Huckabee, and the rest doesn't make them "fools." That, and the fact you downplay his public speaking abilities blow massive holes in your ethos, man. I know you've got to keep up your reputation of spicy sensationalism in your posts, but neither one of those charges against Obama can be said objectively.

[GalensGhost 0]

I think it is worth noting that Tex has chosen to ignore all requests for substance while he continues to engage in purely diversionary tactics. Like ALL Obama drones he is clearly befuddled by the most basic of questions:

1. What is is that Obama SPECIFICALLY plans to do and would he, as president, even have the authority or ability to accomplish it?

2. Assuming he can do any of the things he proposes, who will pay for them?

Don't expect Tex or any other barack wonk to reply. They can't. Because even the candidate doesnt know.

[TexasTiger 13,026]

I think it is worth noting that Tex has chosen to ignore all requests for substance while he continues to engage in purely diversionary tactics. Like ALL Obama drones he is clearly befuddled by the most basic of questions:

1. What is is that Obama SPECIFICALLY plans to do and would he, as president, even have the authority or ability to accomplish it?

2. Assuming he can do any of the things he proposes, who will pay for them?

Don't expect Tex or any other barack wonk to reply. They can't. Because even the candidate doesnt know.

Galen's drunk and repeating himself again.

[GalensGhost 0]

Galen... It's late, I'm hungry, and I'm buzzing so take it FWIW.

Why will I vote for Obama? I agree with him on more issues than I do McCain. Am I completely sold on him? No, and had some reservations with every candidate in the race. I have a major beef with him on tort reform. While I don't think he's exactly sold on it and wouldn't have an opportunity to do any damage in the sure-to-be Democratically dominated 111th Congress, I do take serious issue with his position, as lukewarm as it may be. I'm also not as motivated on the government providing universal healthcare as he is, but we both agree that our current system is in a helluva fix in regards to the less fortunate.

His positives in my eyes? I appreciate the fact that he was against the Iraq quagmire when it was the unpopular stance to take. People complain about politicians that govern by polls, and through this position, it's obvious that he isn't one of those politicians. I also like that he hasn't taken one red cent from lobbyists -- props goes out to John Edwards for that, too. I think government is heading down a slippery slope -- one in which our elected officials are merely middle men for powerful lobbyists and donors. I want my Congressperson, Senator, and President to have what they believe to be the the public's best interests at heart and not be mouthpieces for notoriously corrupt special interests. Another positive is the fact that he, as a Harvard Law graduate, accepted a $13,000 job on the inner city streets of Chicago instead of taking his rightful place among the Wall Street elite. I'll be totally honest and say that I could probably never do that, but I think it's a very admirable action that tells me a lot about his character.

Just a word of advice -- I would leave the "how will we pay for this?!??!?!" Republican talking point alone, considering the empire of a government Bush has built over the past seven years. A quick start to saving, however, would be getting the hell out of the desert and letting them rebuild their own damn nation.

I'm just wondering how he is a "fool?" Simply because I disagree with Giuliani, McCain, Huckabee, and the rest doesn't make them "fools." That, and the fact you downplay his public speaking abilities blow massive holes in your ethos, man. I know you've got to keep up your reputation of spicy sensationalism in your posts, but neither one of those charges against Obama can be said objectively.

Obama is wrong on Iraq. He was wrong then and he's wrong now. Period.

You don't think his strings are pulled by someone? PLEASE. Jesus Christ. That's the kind of thinking that concerns me. Like all politicians, Obama has an agenda and people behind him who are driving it. I would prefer that the agenda be semi-transparent -- lobbyists -- than the shady, radical, extreme factions that guide his thinking. Dangerous ground indeed. That people choose to turn a blind eye to that alarms me.

You think he has character because he took a civil rights job? Does Al Sharpton have character? What about uncle Jesse J? Character? Yes, they ARE characters, but they have none.

Perhaps Obama is not the fool. But he certainly takes the American people to be fools. And some of you are lining right up to accept the brand.

I'm truly disgusted and sickened that people as a whole aren't intelligent enough to se through this guy and recognize him for the danger he is. I've said that this country gets dumber and dumber every year. Obama's candidacy bears that out.

By the way, Tex still hasn't responded. He can't, because there is nothing to say. You at least tried, but as I expected you gave me no specifics about his plans, only general platitudes about why he's a "good" guy.

I'm still waiting on Tex. I'll keep asking and he'll keep dodging. He'll make cracks, he'll toss out smoke bombs. He'll insist that there's no reason for him to bother. But the core truth is that he CANNOT give any specifics, he can't defend Obama's positions because it's an impossibility.

[WinCrimson 61]

He's not wrong on Iraq and wasn't from the beginning. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

Until you can prove that strings are being pulled, I'll have to assume otherwise. Are you asking me if he is ever influenced by an outside force? The obvious answer is yes, but it is refreshing to see a candidate not in bed with special interests, be it MoveOn.org or the fat cat oil lobby. I have to ask -- who do you think is more likely to be influenced by lobbyists, the man they donate to or the man who refuses their donations? What's dangerous is that you believe private donations to be "radical, shady, and extreme" instead of lobbyists and PACs. You've been conditioned to politics as usual -- a continuous cycle of favors and back room business deals.

I never said anything about the duties of his job giving him character. Taking a $13,000 job over putting his Harvard degree to use in a high rise building does, however. I notice how you felt the need to drag out the morons of Sharpton and Jackson in a weak diversion attempt. Their actions have absolutely nothing to do with his. It's good that you left Giuliani out of the argument, though, seeing that he's an adulterer and doesn't acknowledge his own children. Some character there!

If you had done your research instead of "spewing rhetorical babble" you would find that Obama actually has a pretty distinguished Senate record in the short time he has spent there. Per THOMAS, he has sponsored or co-sponsored 570 bills in the 109th and 110th Congress, has sponsored or co-sponsored 15 bills that have become LAW since he joined the Senate in 2005, and has also introduced amendments to 50 bills, of which 16 were adopted by the Senate. That's a very strong record for a junior Senator, and even more impressive when you factor in the minority party status he shouldered during his first two years in office. His record suggests several priorities and the bills he supports address many of our most pressing problems. Most of his legislative effort has been in the area of Energy Efficiency and Climate Change (25 bills), health care (21 bills) and public health (20 bills), consumer protection/labor (14 bills), the needs of Veterans and the Armed Forces (13 bills), Congressional Ethics and Accountability (12 bills), Foreign Policy (10 bills) Voting and Elections (9 bills), Education (7 bills), Hurricane Katrina Relief (6), the Environment (5 bills), Homeland Security (4 bills), and discrimination (4 bills). You and the rest of your party will soon find that the charge that he has no experience carries no weight. Just because he doesn't mention the 14 consumer protection bills or 13 Veterans Affairs bills he's sponsored while on the stump doesn't mean he is without experience. Keep in mind that what I have listed are not fluffy resolutions or the naming of post offices, but detailed and important legislation. The sweeping ethics reforms he enacted while in the Illinois state legislature is sorely needed at this time, as well.

So, yes, Galen, I think he's more than just a good guy and can point to his record to prove it. And while I don't think he is the "messiah", I do think he will make a good President.

[RunInRed 16,487]

BTW, Galen, no offense intended, when I think of someone with engaging rhetoric, but little substance, you honestly come to mind.

And for the record, I'd be a better presidential candidate than Obama. I've got more substance than him and CERTAINLY more than anyone who supports him.

[GalensGhost 0]

He's not wrong on Iraq and wasn't from the beginning. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

Until you can prove that strings are being pulled, I'll have to assume otherwise. Are you asking me if he is ever influenced by an outside force? The obvious answer is yes, but it is refreshing to see a candidate not in bed with special interests, be it MoveOn.org or the fat cat oil lobby. I have to ask -- who do you think is more likely to be influenced by lobbyists, the man they donate to or the man who refuses their donations? What's dangerous is that you believe private donations to be "radical, shady, and extreme" instead of lobbyists and PACs. You've been conditioned to politics as usual -- a continuous cycle of favors and back room business deals.

I never said anything about the duties of his job giving him character. Taking a $13,000 job over putting his Harvard degree to use in a high rise building does, however. I notice how you felt the need to drag out the morons of Sharpton and Jackson in a weak diversion attempt. Their actions have absolutely nothing to do with his. It's good that you left Giuliani out of the argument, though, seeing that he's an adulterer and doesn't acknowledge his own children. Some character there!

If you had done your research instead of "spewing rhetorical babble" you would find that Obama actually has a pretty distinguished Senate record in the short time he has spent there. Per THOMAS, he has sponsored or co-sponsored 570 bills in the 109th and 110th Congress, has sponsored or co-sponsored 15 bills that have become LAW since he joined the Senate in 2005, and has also introduced amendments to 50 bills, of which 16 were adopted by the Senate. That's a very strong record for a junior Senator, and even more impressive when you factor in the minority party status he shouldered during his first two years in office. His record suggests several priorities and the bills he supports address many of our most pressing problems. Most of his legislative effort has been in the area of Energy Efficiency and Climate Change (25 bills), health care (21 bills) and public health (20 bills), consumer protection/labor (14 bills), the needs of Veterans and the Armed Forces (13 bills), Congressional Ethics and Accountability (12 bills), Foreign Policy (10 bills) Voting and Elections (9 bills), Education (7 bills), Hurricane Katrina Relief (6), the Environment (5 bills), Homeland Security (4 bills), and discrimination (4 bills). You and the rest of your party will soon find that the charge that he has no experience carries no weight. Just because he doesn't mention the 14 consumer protection bills or 13 Veterans Affairs bills he's sponsored while on the stump doesn't mean he is without experience. Keep in mind that what I have listed are not fluffy resolutions or the naming of post offices, but detailed and important legislation. The sweeping ethics reforms he enacted while in the Illinois state legislature is sorely needed at this time, as well.

So, yes, Galen, I think he's more than just a good guy and can point to his record to prove it. And while I don't think he is the "messiah", I do think he will make a good President.

Lobbyists and MoveOn.org scare me far less than the fanatical zealots that shape his opinions. He does have Muslim influences. And have you bothered to research his religious affiliation? That's some really frightening stuff.

Don't care about what job he took. Don't know the circumstances of that choice and neither do you.

As for his Senate record you noted Energy/Climate bills. That equals Global Warming, which is a farce. People who embrace this farce don't have much in the way of cognitive skills.

You also listed a number of bills he voted on or participated in. What was the focus of his involvement? Health care and public health? What was his stance on those items and what did the bills he impacted accomplish? I have yet to agree with anything he says in regard to health care, so I have to assume that his efforts here were wrong-headed. As for the rest, I need to know what those bills did, what they said, what they impacted.

I don't have a party and I doubt that his claims of "experience" will amount to a single bean in the overall hill. If he could stand on his record, he'd have already brought it to the forefront.

Looks to me like he's taking credit for a lot of things he didn't really do, but just appended his name to.

[TexasTiger 13,026]

By the way, Tex still hasn't responded. He can't, because there is nothing to say. You at least tried, but as I expected you gave me no specifics about his plans, only general platitudes about why he's a "good" guy.

I'm still waiting on Tex. I'll keep asking and he'll keep dodging. He'll make cracks, he'll toss out smoke bombs. He'll insist that there's no reason for him to bother. But the core truth is that he CANNOT give any specifics, he can't defend Obama's positions because it's an impossibility.

Galen: "You must respond althought there is nothing to say."

Here is what you fail to understand (actually, this is just a very small part of what you fail to understand):

If I was insisting that people vote a particular way here, I should make a compelling argument for that. Most folks here will probably vote for McCain. There is absolutlely no need for them to defend their vote to me. If they wish to try to convince me to vote for him, they should make a good case, but that is up to them. There's not a chance in hell that you are voting for Obama, no matter what I say, but you insist that I help fuel your silly rants.

The way it looks now, the most likely viable candidates for President will be Obama and McCain. Those are likely your choices. The only reason you need to vote for McCain is that you prefer him to to Obama. You don't even have to like McCain. And vice versa. That said, I do like Obama and am positive about his campaign for many reasons that I verbally discuss with sincerely interested, rational people. I have no illusions about magical things happening if he is elected. But even if I didn't like Obama, at this point, I'd have to have extremely serious reservations about him to opt instead for McCain. But I don't intend to spend this election season wasting my time trying to convince the Republicans and Republican-leaning folks here to vote like I do. You spend your time as you wish.

[GalensGhost 0]

Galen: "You must respond althought there is nothing to say."

Here is what you fail to understand (actually, this is just a very small part of what you fail to understand):

If I was insisting that people vote a particular way here, I should make a compelling argument for that. Most folks here will probably vote for McCain. There is absolutlely no need for them to defend their vote to me. If they wish to try to convince me to vote for him, they should make a good case, but that is up to them. There's not a chance in hell that you are voting for Obama, no matter what I say, but you insist that I help fuel your silly rants.

The way it looks now, the most likely viable candidates for President will be Obama and McCain. Those are likely your choices. The only reason you need to vote for McCain is that you prefer him to to Obama. You don't even have to like McCain. And vice versa. That said, I do like Obama and am positive about his campaign for many reasons that I verbally discuss with sincerely interested, rational people. I have no illusions about magical things happening if he is elected. But even if I didn't like Obama, at this point, I'd have to have extremely serious reservations about him to opt instead for McCain. But I don't intend to spend this election season wasting my time trying to convince the Republicans and Republican-leaning folks here to vote like I do. You spend your time as you wish.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAA.....

Candy from babies.

I've told you three times or more that I don't have a candidate. I'd be willing to listen to any of the four remaining options in order to make an informed decision. I listened to Obama and found his stated position on a variety of issues to be repellant. My dislike for McCain is more personal -- I just don't like the way he looks. I gave you numerous opportunities to defend or explain some of the vapidity your candidate spouts and as I suspected, you are utterly and completely unable to do so.

Don't feel bad, Tex, you're not the only Obama supporter who can't come up with anything when pressed for specifics. In fact, you represent the vast majority of his supporters. It's a bleeding cult of personality, totally adrift from rationality. Congratulations. Ride the wave.

I hope that others who support this gaseous puff of hype as well as those who might be undecided are watching and take note that you cannot defend him at all.

[RunInRed 16,487]

TT - dont' waste your time with this guy. He's the one who seriously thought Rudy was the most qualified person to be President. Of course, history proved he was not capable of running a campaign, much less the country.

[TexasTiger 13,026]

TT - dont' waste your time with this guy. He's the one who seriously thought Rudy was the most qualified person to be President. Of course, history proved he was not capable of running a campaign, much less the country.

He seriously worships Rudy. I think a key source of Galen's perpetual frustration is that he can't bear Rudy's children.